Others in this blog have hypothesized about the resurrection and still others made statements on how some people would still wait for the “real” Christ etc. I was not trying to circumvent doctrine, theology, dogma or whatever you want to call it.

Yes blogs kind of take on a will of their don’t they.

That is an interesting perspective.

Bear in mind, though, that all Christians (including Mormons) believe Jesus’ second coming will be in power and that the wicked will be destroyed at his coming. As C.S. Lewis put it (paraphrasing from memory), this time he’s coming to conquer.

However, I can see that many, even amongst the “non-wicked” (those not destroyed) that there could be great disbelief and that this could be a form of crucifying.

I didn’t intend this thought experiment to represent what is going to happen. I just setup a hypothetical scenario for the sake of exploring.

Of course it it seems to end with, “and what if they realized that the Mormons were right all along?”, how would they feel. Maybe another question might be, and what if the Mormons discovered that Joseph Smith was a hoax and the Book of Mormon was a fabrication.

While you can spend all the time you want saying “I know” with “every fiber of your being”, “as sure as you breath air”, the facts are no one is suppose to know for sure since that would mean a sure knowledge and where would faith be?

I’m not an alcoholic, but I’ve read about some of the rants against the AA organization. One is that after years of saying, “I’m Fred, and I’m an alcoholic” that over time you’ve cause yourself to believe you are if only because you keep repeating it over and over. And to say “I’m an alcoholic” instead of “I’m a recovering alcoholic” is a life sentence. How can there be any getting over it?

I see an almost group think conspiracy in the Church. I thought as Latter-day saints you were suppose to be seekers of truth. Interesting…religion decides what the truth is and stops there. Science decides…this is our best guess up to now, but we’ll keep looking. Growth requires…demands that we suspend our current view and consider other things.

Certainly it’s your choice on how you spend you precious life…but what is to be gained by such a speculative effort?

If I say I know…you say you know…we all say we know…add some sappy music…a few tears and we can really be convincing, but it still doesn’t make it so.

So to speculate, “what if the Mormons are right”…with only 12-13 million Mormons (of which only 40-50% are active)….13-14 million Jews… there are 920 million Hindus…325 million Buddhists…almost a billion other Christians and another billion Muslims. Almost seems like comparing the earth to something the size of the sun.

From a now, outsiders perspective…I think the world would be better off if we just focused on being human beings first rather than some made up religion. We have so much more in common that we don’t get to because we’re caught up in these types of discussions.

There is no contradiction between Deuteronomy Deut 7:3-7 and Deut 21:10-14. Context is more than reading the entire chapter. As somebody who calls themselves a liberal you should be more familiar with history and realize that the chapter breaks we see in modern bibles are a far later innovation (although the attempt was clearly to correspond to logical breaks in the text).

In the first passage the foreign peoples the Israelites are charged not to intermarry with are those in “the land wither thou goest to possess” ie, the promised land, not foreign enemies such as Egypt and Babylon and Syria that could be a threat to Israel but were generally outside of its boundaries. To make this point even more clear the text even lists out these ethnicities/tribal-nations. In verse 2 the command is to “utterly destroy them.” If you utterly destroy a people properly, you won’t be able to intermarry with them, and God, knowing the stubbornness of the Israelites gives just such a command in verse three.

The command to wipe out the tribal-nations of Canaan is repeated in Deuteronomy chapter 20, verses 16-17. This command is reiterated here as a contrast to the instructions in verses 10-15 in which God lays out rules of engagement for “all the cities which are very far off from thee” (v15). Verse 14 makes it clear that women and children captives were to be taken. So, by the time we get to chapter 21, verses 10-14, we already have a rich context for interpreting the supplementary commands for dealing with female captives. These female captives could only be from far away cities because there should have been absolutely no captives taken from the nations Israel was meant to replace. Your confusion probably stems from the fact that the passage you cited in Deuteronomy 21 is also placed within the more immediate context of laws governing domestic behavior (ie, what to do when you find a dead body out in the field). How an Israelite man is to deal with a captive woman is a domestic issue. Whether he should take a captive in the first place is a foreign policy issue.

Carlos (too)

Guess you answered yourself.

On the other hand, why not just take everyone that didn’t hear about Christ and throw them into Eternal torment forever and ever and torture them for Eternity in a pit of fire and brimstone, boiling them alive? Where’s the love, or justice, or mercy, or hope, or goodness, or anything worthy whatsoever in that?

Indeed, how could torturing people forever *ever* be reconciled to a loving God. Would we call any father that treated his wayward children that way loving? Would we call any person at all, father or otherwise, that treated *anyone* that way loving? Would we even call a judge that treated convicts that way just? Would we call such a person anything but evil?

Sarah, maybe you have concerns with a God that loves so deeply and perfectly that he will take the worst of us and, though giving each their just punishment as His justice nature requires, eventually allow them to accept Christ’s merciful atonment and end their torment in hell through repentance and change. Though they shall never be the equal of the believer that believed on faith, a loving God would always search for an end to their torment. To deny otherwise is to misunderstand God’s very nature. Such perfect justice and mercy has no mortal dreamed of. Such perfect love can only God conceive; even now most people reject that God could be so loving. They want it otherwise. They demand it otherwise.

But will we all not wish for God’s mercy? Will we all not wish for His love? Are we so different than even those you condemn? Are we not all beggars before the Lord? Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged.

Sarah, while I appreciate that We’re a happy family” with Barney as the leader. is your idea of Heaven, it isn’t to many of us.

Are you allowed to think highly of Fox News and still vote for Obamah. Won’t they revoke your vast right wing conspiracy card or something?

I have more questions for you, but they probably aren’t appropriate for the form at this point. I’m curious about how you reconcile various things, like D&C 132 not being a revelation but being the basis for our belief in deification and the plurality of gods. (Assuming you believe in those, which I’m curious if you do or don’t.)

But anyhow, this line of questioning could go on forever, so don’t bother answering right now. If you still want me to post your article about Evangelicals I’d still be interested. Let me know and we’ll figure out a way to make contact. (And if that happens, maybe I can ask more questions privately.)

Do you believe, as some here do, that he was inspired, but so are all religious leaders, and that he abused his position to practice polygamy? No, not all religious leaders are inspired, but some are. LDS leaders are not inspired 100% of the time. They try their best. Was polygamy a mistake in my opinion? Yes.

Do you believe D&C 132 is in fact a revelation? No. Even if you do believe it is a revelation it is for all intents and purposes a dead letter. This is reflected in the fact that for the most part the entire section is ignored in the church today, except for maybe v 15-20. Would I be in favor of decanonizing it? Yes.
Do you believe Jacob 2 is the word of God too? Yes.

Do you believe the Book of Mormon is historical or just inspired fiction or not inspired? I believe that the Book of Mormon is inspired. I hope that it is historical, but that hope I am afraid does not rise to the level of belief. As for the Bible, large portions of it are provably unhistorical, some portions are historical.

Am I “orthodox”? Theologically, I am probably best categorized as fairly liberal, at least for a Mormon. A liberal Mormon probably ranks as a moderate Protestant.

I doubt many people have doubts as to what my basic beliefs are if for no other reason than I’m “orthodox” in my Mormon beliefs and everyone knows the basics of what Mormons believe. Yes, everyone is in agreement on what Mormons basically believe, the problem is that once you leave the basics even a term like “orthodox” becomes meaningless.

If you are interested in a guest post on what is an Evangelical, I’d be happy to post it for you. I would be very interested, personally.

You are right that saying “Protestant or Evangelical” is imprecise. I’m of course speaking from direct experience with discussing such things, usually with Evangelicals of the layman variety. There are certain patterns that emerge (as would be true of any group) and you accidently hit upon one of them. For what it’s worth, you have my convinced your Mormon or at least the best fake I’ve ever seen.

As for my beliefs, I go to great lengths to try to explain them and I’m systematically doing so. I doubt many people have doubts as to what my basic beliefs are if for no other reason than I’m “orthodox” in my Mormon beliefs and everyone knows the basics of what Mormons believe. Could we assume the same about you? I don’t think we can. So I submit that my beliefs are considerably more transparent than yours at this point in time.

I also submit that it is an unfair tactic (in my view anyhow) for you to ask me pointed questions (i.e. “Please, give me a full explanation of how the first quote leads to the second quote.”) or even make a personal attack based on a straw man of my beliefs (i.e. “saying that you know the Book of Mormon better than the guy that translated it is borderline silly at best, smug at worst” which is not even close to what I said) but ignoring my requests to undestand where you are coming from (i.e. “In any case, it’s hard to even know what you are getting at without really understanding what your position is. Do you believe in the Book of Mormon?”)

If I might be bold (but hopefully not offending you in any way) I would like to know the answer to my original question. Since you stated that Jacob 2 and D&C 132 were contradictory (i.e. “When they use the same example in two different ways, you have a contradiction on your hands.”) I would like to know where you personally stand on Joseph Smith and revelation. Do you believe, as some here do, that he was inspired, but so are all religious leaders, and that he abused his position to practice polygamy? Do you believe D&C 132 is in fact a revelation? Do you believe Jacob 2 is the word of God too? Do you believe the Book of Mormon is historical or just inspired fiction or not inspired?

I think it’s obvious that I have already answered all the above questions for myself. I’m only asking that you do the same.

I have no intentions of attacking your beliefs — though I do reserve the right to point out why I might see them as contradictory as you did to mine — but I do feel you should have answered the questions I asked rather than ignoring them since you had so clearly challenged my (and others) beliefs on the topic of discussion.

If you don’t feel comfortable answering basic questions about basic beliefs like this, that’s fine, but than can we honestly say you are engaging in dialog? I don’t think so.

Regardless, I’d still be interested in posting your post. I have no hard feelings over this. I just don’t respond to certain tactics that at the time I felt you were using.

If I offended you by saying I thought you might be an Evangelical, I am sorry. To be honest, I don’t find that offensive at all. I rather like Evangelicals and 99% of their religion I find Godly and uplifting.

Defining what someone is based on one particular behavior is dangerous. There are contradictions in scripture. If it makes you feel better if I point out a contradiction using just the Bible then try these two references: Deut 7:3-7 and Deut 21:10-14. Taken in context they are completely contradictory. In fact you can take them out of context and they are still contradictory. The scriptures are not the end-all-be-all sources of doctrine, I thought that’s why we have prophets.

By the way, that last statement alone pretty much makes it impossible for me to be an Evangelical. I don’t think anyone would care about this but I would be willing to write a guest post on what an Evangelical is, most Mormons really don’t have a clue. I myself didn’t until recently. In any case saying something “sounds very Protestant or Evangelical” is completely meaningless because the relationship between Protestants and Evangelicals is much more complicated than simply lumping them together.

As for my beliefs, what do you really want to know about? I believe lots of things, you need to give a particular subject. You really haven’t been too forthcoming about your beliefs either, you like to live in the realm of hypotheticals, as this post does. What does a hypothetical really tell me about what you believe, since it’s all hypothetical anyway?

Yes, because by that time Fox News will call them and set them straght.

I think a Evangelical would take two Mormon scriptures and claim they are are contradictory and that there is no way to reconcile them and then would take a scripture in the Bible that states the same and then claim it’s not a problem through interpreting it’s context. Yes, I think that sounds very Protestant or Evangelical to me.

Whether or not this example, which really does seem deeply Evangelical, is representative of your overall beliefs I can’t say because you’ve done little to explain your beliefs even when I ask you nicely to give your point of view on a subject. I would, of course, prefer that you took time to explain yourself, David, and I even tried in my last post to you to engage you a little in dialog, which you rebuffed. That’s fine. It’s your choice of course.

Bruce, I am now convinced that you have no idea what an Evangelical is, since no one in their right mind would accuse me of being an Evangelical Christian. So, just for kicks, please explain to me what you think an Evangelical is. No fair looking it up first.

fair question is whether or not Mormons would qualify. Give us a real life religion that is believes in Henotheism (since apparently Hindus don’t qualify) and let’s do a real life comparison to Mormonism. First, no one believes in henotheism, it’s a definition of a certain type of belief system. Second, since it is a definition, you simply have to look at Mormons and decide if the definition applies, you don’t need to compare us with another group of “real life henotheists.”

Whoa there Jeff! Now it’s one thing to have gross misrepresentations about the Church said on these forums… and it’s another to have faith in God…

But holy cow! You actually believe CNN can get a story straight in a mere 6 to 8 hours!?!?!?

“You see, what I’m trying to say is that if the Christians of today reject the real Jesus just like the Jews rejected the real Jehovah when he showed up, then they are certain to still do that when he returns for the millennium.”

Hate to tell you this, but most Jews during the time of Jesus never heard of Him, never saw Him and probably went on to die without ever knowing that He even existed.

Today, we have CNN, but it will probably take them at least 6-8 hours to get the story right after it breaks!

First of all, all people would be much better off lighten up on the other guy. Not worry so much about what others do and concentrate on their own behavior.

Secondly, we’d all be better off if we focused on serving others more and serving ourselves less.

Thirdly, I believe that when we get to the judgment, the Savior is not going to do a recounting of our sins which we are all aware of, but rather, point out to us the things we could have done unto others but did not, for one reason or another. In other words, ignoring the promptings of the Holy Ghost, not serving as much as we were able. Not showing up when we should have. Stuff like that. We will be shown the consequences of NOT DOING something we should have.

I think that these things will be more painful and cause more regret than being shown the time we were less valiant or said a bad word, acted inappropriately or stole the candy bar. We all know those things.

I do think, that many will not recognize the Savior when he comes because they are expecting someone different just like before and will not trust the revelation of the Holy Ghost bearing witness of the Churst to them.

NM Tony and Ben aren’t so far apart here. Both are saying the after life, if at all different than expectations (which presumably it will be for eveyone, even Mormons) will cause pain and distress.

Okay, fair enough.

>>> Heck, even many Mormons could reject a resurrected Jesus who shows up in a business suit and clean shaven, wouldn’t you think?

Have to admit that’d be pretty weird.

Its that this ‘thought experiment’ is simply just impossible because if one day Jesus returns they will just say ‘Nope, this isn’t the Jesus of the bible’ as they do today everytime they criticize our Jesus. In the spiritual sense (which actually changes people) Jesus has returned and everyone who wants to speak to him or see him can do so today. Seeing him in person won’t make all that much of a difference. So they wont ‘feel disappointed that substance theology wasn’t true’ but would stick to that theology and reject the returned Jesus, just as they do today with the returned spiritually influential Jesus. They won’t ‘rejoice over finding that their unrepentant loved ones don’t stay in hell forever?’ because they don’t feel that way today everytime they reject the true Jesus, the one Joseph Smith first told us about.

You see, what I’m trying to say is that if the Christians of today reject the real Jesus just like the jews rejected the real Jehova when he showed up, then they are certain to still do that when he returns for the millennium. The Jews kept Moses’ law even though the law-giver was standing in front of them and I think that it will be the same with the Baptist/evangelicals who fanatically follow the biblical Jesus but reject him today when he’s available to all, and they’ll keep doing this at the start of the millennium -unless they repent and get baptized, change their ways and so on…off course.

Heck, even many Mormons could reject a resurrected Jesus who shows up in a business suit and clean shaven, wouldn’t you think? They start going off that ‘No, since Primary He was in a robe and bearded so this can’t be Jesus in an Armani?